This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a trade case appealed from the United States Court of International Trade. The court also issued three nonprecedential opinions in employment and veteran cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board and the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims respectively. Finally, the court also issued six Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.
Goodluck India Limited v. United States (Precedential)
Defendants-Appellants appeal the judgment of the United States Court of International Trade affirming a remand determination by the United States Department of Commerce in an antidumping duty investigation on U.S. imports of cold-drawn mechanical tubing from India. In the underlying investigation, Commerce rejected Plaintiff-Appellee Goodluck India’s submission of supplemental data and relied on “adverse facts available” under 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b) for its less-than-fair-value analysis, which resulted in an antidumping margin of 33.8% ad valorem applicable to Goodluck India’s imports of mechanical tubing. Goodluck India appealed to the Court of International Trade, arguing that its submission was a permissible correction of a minor clerical error and that it was entitled to submit supplemental information up to the day of verification. The Court of International Trade agreed with Goodluck India and remanded to Commerce. Commerce, under protest, conducted a new less-than-fair-value analysis resulting in a zero-percent antidumping margin for Goodluck India. Defendants-Appellants challenged the remand determination, but the Court of International Trade affirmed. Defendants-Appellants now appeal to this court.
We hold that Commerce’s initial determination—rejecting Goodluck India’s supplemental submission on grounds that it constituted new factual information and not a minor or clerical correction of the record, and that the submission was unverifiable as it was submitted on the eve of verification—is supported by substantial evidence and not otherwise contrary to law. We reverse.
Porter v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
Mr. Porter was employed by the U.S. Postal Service during the 1990s. In June 2019, he applied for a deferred annuity under the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS). In July of that year, OPM rejected his application, finding that he “d[id] not meet all of the necessary eligibility criteria” for a deferred annuity. Informal Opening Br. 42. In August 2019, Mr. Porter appealed OPM’s decision to the Board.
After he initiated the appeal of OPM’s decision, Mr. Porter filed a motion to compel production of a document from OPM and then, according to the administrative judge, ceased all participation in his appeal. As a result, the administrative judge dismissed Mr. Porter’s challenge for failure to prosecute, concluding that Mr. Porter “failed to exercise basic due diligence” after not continuing to participate in his appeal. S.A. 3. Mr. Porter did not seek review before the Board, and thus, the administrative judge’s dismissal became the final decision of the Board.
* * *
Under these circumstances, the dismissal for failure to prosecute was not an abuse of discretion and was supported by substantial evidence.
Booker v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)
Between 2002 and 2008, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) denied claims filed by veteran Romal D. Booker seeking disability benefits based on medical conditions—right-knee arthritis, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)—that he alleged were connected to his Air Force service. In 2016, Mr. Booker sought to reopen the claims, but the VA’s Board of Veterans’ Appeals, in agreement with the relevant VA regional office, denied the request, finding that Mr. Booker had not submitted new and material evidence, as required for the requested reopening. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) affirmed the denial. Booker v. Wilkie, No. 19- 2741, 2020 WL 5223533, at *4 (Vet. App. Sept. 2, 2020); Supplemental Appendix (SAppx.) 1–9. Mr. Booker appeals. But we lack jurisdiction to decide the issues that he raises, so we must dismiss the appeal.
Murray v. Army (Nonprecedential)
Sarah J. Murray petitions for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board’s (“Board”) decision sustaining her termination of employment by the Department of the Army (“Army”) for unprofessional conduct during a probationary trial period. See Murray v. Dep’t of the Army, No. DA-1221- 18-0518-W-2 (M.S.P.B. Oct. 5, 2020) (decision available at App. 7–591). We affirm.